America is no longer offering liberty and justice for all.

If they had the money or the State would pay...for the tubal ligation or vasectomy...
Chances are that if they (state) are not going to say yes to an abortion then their options are limited...also thinking about birth control...is it paid for or not...lots of questions but no one really answers the question...
I rather not place blame but it seems simple enough...let them get an abortion or pay for birth control either via pills or surgical removal of organs of either sex...that way no one is bound to be responsible for the upkeep of those children or future children with medical needs...skip the so called religious ideology and help people instead of shame and blame...jmo...

Yup these are not parents who should be encouraged to carry on having kids. I guess my point was more that this was not a situation which could end well, let's do the sensible thing here. Refusing to terminate in this situation is in no way sensible, so I do take issue with the state - they didn't make her a drinker or druggie, they certainly didn't get her pregnant, but to refuse the best way out is more like a gang of judgemental old relatives than far-sighted government. JMO

Yes, as individuals we can roll our eyes and say good grief take hold of your lives and start acting like responsible adults - I feel exactly that.

However that comes down to all thoughtless behaviour. If someone goes drinking and picking fights every weekend at a local bar as individuals we can tut. But turn him away from the state hospital and refuse to treat his injuries because he brought them on himself - I don't know, maybe that happens too. Personally, I'd think serve him right. But if I was suddenly in charge of the area - well, would never happen, but I suspect I'd think hang on, let's try fixing him up and stopping the problem somehow.

Seems to me intelligent local government should try to minimise the mess we make of our lives. Avoided going to school and now too stupid to get a job? I'd like a community offering night school, or the chance to learn a trade. A repeat offender with behavioural issues - offer at least the option of rehabilitation, becoming a useful member of the community. Long term benefits outweight saying "bud, you're on your own, you brought it on yourself" - we can all do that as individuals but good leaders really should take a bigger view of the community as a whole.

But I don't think that's the reason people these days get into government.

Good question.

There are lots of families which have kids a year apart in age, it isn't uncommon, sometimes they are even pleased, nearly as good as having twins, the kids will be company for each other.

So falling pregnant 3 months after giving birth - yes, personal responsibility fail, but not always a bad thing.

Having lots of kids without really being able to look after them - personal responsibility fail, AND to a degree community fail in not pressing them to be more responsible. Yes no?

Falling pregnant and learning the baby is lodged in a way that threatens the life of both mother and child - damn, that's a tough break. Act of God? Fate? But we live in an age where we have damage limitation, let's terminate this dangerous pregnancy.

Having a disastrous track record, surely that makes it even more essential.

So big fail on personal responsibility, I completely agree. But also in this case big, BÏG, fail on the state's responsibility. Government is supposed to have an overview. We don't as individuals like the police much, especially when they catch us speeding or a drink over the limit or playing music too loudly, but we expect the police to look after the community's best interests. Nobody likes paying tax, but the money goes into a central pool and we expect it to be spent for the good of the community. I could go on but heavens, as a Swiss resident you know more about laws being drawn up for the community than any other country on earth and that's all about taking over for the good of all when an individual is not very good at personal responsibility. Refusing a woman a termination when the outcome can never be positive - that's hard to understand.

Yes. Exactly.

I agree, the situation was extreme.

Personally I think using abortion as a kind of last-ditch birth control is utterly horrifying. I do, though, also think that making women give birth after rape, or incest, or when they are too young or too old or physically endangered by the pregnancy continuing, is equally horrifying.

The fact that any woman, once her pregnancy is confirmed, could be prosecuted for murder if she'd gone to another state for an abortion, is so far beyond rational that it boggles the mind. Luckily it very rarely happens, sanity and decency does usually prevail - but the threat is there.

And the star-spangled Banner in triumph shall wave,
O'er the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave

I'm with Gabor Maté on the subject of addiction - it's not naughty, it's a self-medication response to personal trauma.

The original failure is likely not protecting children who become addicted to things as adults and don't have the skills to look after their own children.

Perhaps it's our personal responsibility to educate ourselves about addiction before bad mouthing others.

Perhaps, as you said, the greatest failure is in society not supporting those whom society has already failed.

If we agree there is at least one circumstance where abortion is acceptable/necessary and we agree that society can't force a woman to have an abortion even if the pregnancy is likely to be fatal for that mother, then abortion should be a decision made between a woman and those who are medically qualified. The rest of us don't know the details and circumstances.

Politicians making remote blanket decisions is not only inappropriate, but it has ramifications: In Alabama where the state Supreme Court ruled that a fertilised ovum is a human being, fertility clinics have shut down to avoid murder charges. There is also the question of whether women who use IUD's could be charged and imprisoned.

I should have said in my earlier comment (the IUD reminded me) that no contraceptive is 100% effective. More than 1%, that's more than 1 in 100 pregnancies occur despite people behaving responsibly.

One of the implant contraceptives that doctors were pushing here about 15 years ago was an epic fail. It was mostly youngsters who who were caught out, many of whom were utterly unsupported when it came to being parents too soon.

The story is such a very odd blend of the authorities being both heavy-handed and unsupportive - take away children, then refuse to take away a problem before it became a far bigger one. It probably isn't only an American situation, for all I know versions happen all round the world, but so very much space on CS is wasted on two political entities I wondered if pointing up massive fails in the system would get people thinking less about individuals and more about the problems governments have to deal with, and the ways they choose to deal with those who don't fit the mould.

Seems to ME we should all be electing those who encourage the successful and try to get those not succeeding onto a happier path and this is so very much the opposite! The video did say the couple had quit the drinking and drugging and were both trying to make a better future for the child they had left and if that was true the authorities basically are holding their heads underwater and making life as difficult as it possibly could be. Save us all from having people like that controlling our lives.

Yup, circumstances alter cases and blanket inflexible rulings are all frightening.

Knowing I was locked into a society where the only thing that mattered was which numpty should be in overall charge and individuals who didn't fit are shrugged off, well, happens everywhere - Russia, China, the US, North Korea are all guilty and ironically all point at each other as worse culprits.

Living in Spain, where Franco's rule was pretty much absolute and some still mourn the end of Facism and the era of democracy, has boggled my mind at times. Interesting, though, having one's mind boggled every now and then.

I'm reposting this, for surely this is the crux of the matter with respect to overturning Roe vs Wade, or reciting bible verses in legal judgements.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/health/other/is-a-frozen-embryo-a-child-the-alabama-court-ruling-thats-rocked-americas-ivf-clinics-and-reproductive-sector/ar-BB1iPn2I

So this judge is, at a guess, violently anti-war with the implicit encouraging of human beings to destroy other human beings, AND has never ever passed a death sentence. In which case he would be at least consistent in his beliefs and one has to admire consistency, even if one considers it misplaced.

I'm about to look him up.

Chief Justice Tom Parker ... may be fiercely for the overriding rights of human life in its earliest stages, but bitterly criticized the reversing of the death penalty for a 17 year old. Surely, sir, ALL human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory? I am but quoting your own words.

According to Ezekiel - I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live! Parker, it seems, disagrees.

He hangs out with some odd people - mainly white supremacists - and celebrates some unusual events, such as the birthday of the founder of the KKK. Interesting fellow?

Done a bit of digging but so far no luck on finding which bit of the bible he is actually quoting when he says "Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself." as presumably the same section will expand a bit on "rightfully" versus "wrongfully". Maybe BC could help, she must know the bible by heart by now and could point me to the chapter(s) instantly.

I'll dig on, but really only for my own interest, we all know that one is either preaching to the choir or fruitlessly bumping one's gums to those who have turned a deaf ear.

I will say that 'if God wills it' does rather stop all treatment in its tracks. You get a treatable cancer, but did God want to gather you into heaven post-haste or expect you to use modern medicine to hold heaven off a while longer? Or did he give us free will to - gasp - make the decision for ourselves? As with nearly everything else, shall I marry, shall I kill my enemies, shall I fight off death with modern treatments - tough decisions to make alone.



My bible really is getting very old and battered now, I probably need a new one.

Google thinks the only origin of the quote God views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself is Parker.

In fact Parker is taking some interesting risks if he is a believer rather than a quoter, because the bible is pretty clear about the difference between wrath of God and wrath of man and inventing quotes sounds more than a little like playing God. Don't stand near this fella in a thunderstorm ...

Well, I'm interested in what you have found and it's not just about preaching to the choir.

It's about understanding the context of such a profound ruling and how it might be confronted with sound argument.

For surely it needs confronting.

The link below is the lengthy ruling that I'm only a fraction of the way through. If the link doesn't work and you want to read it, I'll try and find another source for you.



The ruling came about after a patient went through an unlocked door in an IVF clinic and tried to pick up some vials. As they were cryogenically frozen, the patient experienced freezer burn, dropped the vials and therefore destroyed the embryos within, leading to a wrongful death civil suit by two sets of parents.

It was only when I started reading the ruling that the irony hit me: those parents who sued for wrongful death must now either use all their frozen embryos, or donate them to other parents. If unused embryos are destroyed then they too will be subject to a wrongful death suit.

I'm assume that embryos in a cryogenic state are likely to have some sort of shelf life. Should the embryos become unviable having been frozen for an extended period, would the parents, the clinicians, the receptionist, the cleaners, the porters, etc. also be liable for wrongful death under the RICO statute?

If I find more on the bible verses, that I think might have something to do with humans having the image of god on their face I'll let you know.

'Several decades, perhaps longer' doesn't sound like the definition of 'indefinitely' to me.

It sounds like an awfully woolly premise to base a wrongful death statute on.

Oh, that's a tragic story - lack of due care by the clinic (so hard to lock a door when people have paid huge sums to create and preserve the embryos?) and a serious smack on the head for the daft patient, who has to be certifiable, and heartbreaking for the parents even if, as you suggest, they had other embryos which are safe. Not all such embryos 'take' (in whch case I presume one must sue God) and how devastating for them if, when they do start the process, none of theirs do - left with the haunting thought the lost vial would have been the one.

I might, living in a society obsessed with suing, have done the same if only for the message to the clinic - Lock The Door, You NUMPTIES.

.

Several decades, perhaps longer - hang on, so the original parents could be long gone, do they leave them in their wills to eventual parents, perhaps laying down a few requirements? (Never a gay or immigrant couple, must be professionals,or perhaps, must be descendants, etc?)

Getting WILDLY fanciful here, imagine aliens taking over and debating what to do with several hundred, or thousand, frozen embryos - eat them? implant them in suitable mammals to raise little pets for the wealthy, or as handy slaves? Or a human zoo for young aliens to visit on school trips - sorry. That was entirely inappropriate, I have a sick mind. But I know for SURE I would not want my embryos outliving any protection I could offer them. MY children, MY decision - not the State's. Oops. Too late.

Yeah, it would interesting to know why the woman found the nursery and why she picked up the vials. There appears to be no plea of mitigating circumstances as yet, but I'd wager she wasn't entirely emotionally healthy at the time.

We don't know the details of the unlocked door, either. All we know is that the door was unlocked and the clinic hasn't been sued, at least yet. Maybe it's just easier to sue the most vulnerable person, or maybe it's more difficult to feel anger towards the clinic that is your only chance of having biological children. Maybe the couples struck a deal with the clinic that now can't be fulfilled.

The two couples who lost the two embryos each were suing for money damages, but again we don't know the details of the viability of the lost embryos, how many embryos that they had in storage, how many successful, or unsuccessful implantations they had.

Given the cost of IVF, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that an element of any award would include enough money to go through the process again. That bit I understand.

It's difficult to imagine, however, whatever the backstory, how a ruling could be made without definitive premises, or seemingly without regard for the potentially devastating consequences. Likewise with overturning Roe vs Wade.

It's interesting that within your empathy you view the embryos as children.

It's difficult not to, but how rational is that?

Presumably in many cases, parents have to separate themselves from their stored embryos when they cease to have treatment for whatever reason.

Yeah, it would interesting to know why the woman found the nursery and why she picked up the vials. There appears to be no plea of mitigating circumstances as yet, but I'd wager she wasn't entirely emotionally healthy at the time. oh well not knowing the facts who can judge. But she's in a IVF clinic as a patient she's going to be interested at the very least - wandering around, walks into a room with who knows what signs, ooh so this is what could happen to my babies let me pick up not one but two vials which perhaps don't have signs up saying danger do not handle - nope, the clinic had a duty of care.

A relative recently went through IVF in UK and as she was over the NHS cut-off age, which I think is 37, had to pay full whack which was nearly 8 thousand pounds. Got two viable embryos after quite a hectic collection process, the first miscarried, the second succeeded. So looked at that way - each had cost nearly 4K just to be created, plus impact on her health from all the hormone treatments, which are still causing some issues. I can't imagine the freezing / storage is cheap but don't know what was paid - that might have been covered by NHS, which was fully supportive from the successful start of each actual pregnancy.

So yup I had a bias on this story. Offer a professional service, carry it through

You make an interesting point re me referring to MY children. If this was a perfect world every child would be a blessing, desperately wanted, the arrow we shoot into the future, and how much more so for someone who has planned ahead and gone through a really quite unpleasant process to ensure that much-wanted child could now happen someday. I would definitely feel a strong connection to that potential arrow sitting in cold storage waiting for the perfect time.

Of course it isn't a perfect world and perhaps a thirteen year old raped by four strangers - random example - wouldn't be as excited about being pregnant. The timing, for starters.

I wonder if it will be possible one day to safely harvest an unwanted embryo and freeze it instead of just terminating the pregnancy. That could be a win-win solution on a number of levels. Is that possibility even being researched? I know it is beyond what is possible now but maybe, one day.

This is interesting.

Would you be okay with one of YOUR children being carried, birthed and raised by some unknown person, or persons? What if they were child abusers, or had babies to sell into slavery? Could you be a defendant in a RICO case as a result of giving your few cells away if that resulting child is harmed?

How about you and your rapist's child becoming your lover when they're in their 20's and you're in your 30's?

Or maybe marrying a sibling without realising?

All this because some muppet eager to execute a 17 year old child in a cruel and unusual way thinks that an embryo consisting of a few cells is more of a child and has more human rights.

Personally, I think it's difficult enough for youngsters in this age of blended families. They can be left wondering if they're sitting next to their half-sibling in school without knowing as it is. Try keeping track of 8, or 9 unused IVF embryos from one donor source, or ones futuristically transplanted from one mother to another and you're heading for feck-upsville.

And how many women would choose to carry a child that was going to die and likely kill them as a way of getting around abortion?

Not to mention how to get to that stage of transplant technology without risking an unlawful death charge in the process of perfecting the technique.

I don't think there's going to be any moving towards utopia with laws that are based in the idea that women are expendable if the Christian god sees fit to unleash a hideous, preventable death on them, such as when a pregnancy is ectopic.

This is turning into a semi-private conversation laugh but the blog is still getting readers so maybe one or two are following with interest.

I realise my last reply was unclear. I was thinking of those who freeze eggs for whatever reason for personal use at a later time - MY children, so to speak. For ME. Because those who do, want those children. What if more (of the 17 eggs harvested) had successfully progressed - 5 little embryos? 6? Well, turned out, she got what she needed, 2, none of the others could be fertilized. So - I don't know. It's a deeply uncomfortable thought. No I would not be okay with them going out of my control, said so already. It was a very specific situation, I'm very glad she doesn't have to fret about "spares" and see no point in speculating about this specific situation. Quite apart from anything else, nobody sane of childbearing age would move to one of those states, and would promptly leave if the state she was in took the huge step back into the dark. .

So far as safely harvesting vs aborting goes, I don't think anyone wanting an abortion has feelings re the unwanted pregnancy other than get it OUT. With states refusing to do that, and positively hankering to keep embryos on indefinite hold, seemed to me that harvesting the embryo which the mother doesn't want, but the state does, was the win win. Becomes the state's problem.

Safely harvesting isn't only to end the pregnancy for the mother, it could have many other applications. To go all the way back to the original topic, the embryo attached to the c-section scar could have been safely removed and maybe, who knows, a year down the line, re-implanted - the parents were trying to sort their act out, after all, If they managed to do that, how much happier an outcome to continue with a baby otherwise lost. Or a sixteen year old who fell pregnant to someone she loved doesn't have the trauma of abortion, just interrupting the pregnancy for ten years. As you said, no way that sort of technology could be developed in one of the dark states but I suspect they eye all technology with the deepest suspicion as it is, until it is proven elsewhere and popular demand forces it on them.

The whole not knowing if you're related to your partner thing has been an issue since forever - men putting it about as they do, wise child knows its father, etc - and has been a much bigger bone of contention since the first official sperm donor sold the first of many donations to sperm clinics. Healthy bright and/or athletic students earning $10 a pop have cheerfully done dozens of donations and later nearly crapped themselves when told the privacy laws could change and their kiddies could track them down. Does it really make such a difference if embryos are added into the sperm controversy? There will for sure be fewer of them.

The "Christian god" hasn't seen fit to unleash anything. Never confuse God with organized religion and the truly dreadful things done by bigots and con artists in every religion. As for ectopic pregnancies, they are not true pregnancies, cannot possibly progress, and are terminated without question everywhere, even in rabidly-anti-abortion states and countries.

I'm convinced I responded to this, and agreed with you re men giving birth, but either it didn't post or got deleted

I do know I read somewhere that several of the politicians agreeing the law were women, which genuinely startled me. I can understand wanting to discourage 'casual' abortion, but that women could sit like fat smug spiders and say yas, yas, make it absolute, we can't see any reason why a woman should need to escape her fate, didn't kill ME to have babies so let us help you slam the door on all those selfish slags

There was me thinking good government needed more women on board ... not all women, but not all men. Any government wanting to represent everyone in the constituency needs men, women, young, old, poor and well-off, because everyone has different needs and it can be hard to walk in another's shoes if you only have theory to rely on. I'm guessing Alabama and the other dark states don't have much of a cross-section.

That is wildly different from my experience of talking to women who have had abortions for all different reasons.

I don't think there's a white, bearded man in the sky.

My comment was a dig at one specific religion being used to make legal rulings with dire consequences for women.

Especially in a country where more than one religion, or non-religion exists, the justice system should be secular.

I beg to differ.

There is at least one instance of a live ectopic birth (Jane Ingram) and sometimes embryos survive until 12-13 weeks which could lead to the death of the mother if the law regarding live embryos is strngently applied.

Also, just like the emotional attachment to the smashed vials of embryos in this story, parents may grieve horribly for lost/aborted 'children' that have implanted ectopically.

If Savita Halappanavar can be allowed to die in agony in Ireland because medics could still hear her much wanted baby's heart beat until it was too late, then the 'life begins at conception' brigade can escalate beyond IVF extrauterine wrongful death suits to include ectopic pregnancies and IUD's, both of which potentially involve destroying live embryos.

Susie
When men start acting like the spokesperson of 'God' we have a problem and of course now some are wanting to control IVF treatments too.
Too many in positions of power are not interested about others...the 'God' they follow is not one who has empathy or is it an excuse to control women (hiding behind their so called religion).

I've just seen a clip of Senator Tommy Tuberville answering questions from the press about the changes in women's reproductive rights.

He would touch on IVF clinics closing saying 'that's a conversation for another day' and 'that's a hard one'.

He was prepared to address the subject of 'life at conception' where he repeated 'we need more children' three times, but said nothing else.

So is overturning Roe vs Wade etc. about ethical issues, or getting more children by force?

If the US needs to increase the population, there are people desperate to enter at the Mexican boarder.

Trying to keep immigrants out and US women producing children strikes me as a right wing attempt to keep the white population in the majority.

Are MAGA going to produce their own Mutterkreutz?












uwomen producing babies

You rhetoric has notably bypassed the point of my comment.

Sen. Tuberville has stated that the 'life begins at conception' doctrine is about needing more children, not what is ethical, or constitutional, regardless of whether people can no longer access IVF, or women die because of high risk pregnancies.

I'm trying to get at the root of the motive(s) when unqualified politicians are making blanket medical decisions for women and medical staff.

I think Tuberville just let the cat out of the bag. Perhaps you could explain why you think that's constitutional.

I'm not arguing - well, okay, I am - but I was enjoying the discussion more when it was factual and not sweeping statements requiring lots of research and raised eyebrows. The facts themselves are intriguing enough, yes no?

It is simple,
As a man he never had to think what would it be like if the government stepped in and interfered with his body...whether it be about the constitution or not or some other excuse.
To die needlessly or put in peril for religion that is not ones own belief...
The separation of religion and state is needed in all fronts...stay out of medical decision making and the reproductive health of women...

I did comment in my original post that the states making abortion illegal are also the ones offering the least support when the babies are born.

Fact, across the world, immigrants are not the popular answer with locals. They look different, they sound different, they have different priorities, it takes a generation or more to melt into the pot.

Fact, money alone, paying women incentives to have children hasn't boosted the population figures.

Fact, childbirth rates are falling very nearly everywhere

This is almost worth a blog on its own, a post I found on convincing people to have more children - in every country following these guidelines, more professional / intelligent / skilled couples are having more children

1. provide good childcare and support, free or subsidized medical services, etc - not just monetary bribes, which all too often result in unskilled girls or young women choosing to have multiple babies, often with a succession of men, instead of jobs, because they can earn more. These 5, 6, 7, babies are not likely to enrich the community because their mothers are rarely able to lead them into useful productive mindsets from birth. Working mothers find their biggest problems are expensive child care and poor backup.

2. Make work more flexible, to encourage educated women in good jobs to have children while able to work more from home. Otherwise women, already struggling to hold their own in a male-dominated world, are simply not going to put their lives on hold to take 2 years or more out, and perhaps never catch up

3. Put men at work at home - the more time, it was found, that men put into home life, and being with family, the more likely more children would be born. Also, more parental leave and flexibility.

I attached the link.

To go back to my original post - provide good childcare and support, fail. Make work more flexible, fail. Parental leave, fail. Which is why I was indignant in the first place ...

States, and countries, which want more children from residents, should consider making it attractive, not a sacrifice. Just a thought. An expensive one but you know what, long run, far, far, better for the community and wouldn't it nicely sweeten the pill of being told you HAD to have this baby you simply can't afford ...

Not commenting since I don't think you read my last response and this one wasn't addressed to me anyway.

So true. Even more of a problem when men acting as the spokesperson of God are listened to as if they aren't tightly repressed bigots but really do have a hotline

Here's a wicked thought, fit one of these decision makers with an artificial womb so he can carry one of the unwanted embryos to term, without his consent. On the bright side he could become eternally famous as the first man to do so, and speak in future with authority on what it is like to be a parent? Then start his next pregnancy immediately so he can learn all about how helpful the state will be with one on the hip and one in the oven, oh, and of course no parental leave or income support.

His opinions could then become worth listening to? Well, maybe. He could at least show us how to sail through effortlessly ...